Terms and Conditions Apply

Note from the author - As many of you may have already noticed, I have recently been making weekly contributions to Aesop’s Gables. Due to the positive feedback and engagement generated by my May and June posts, I am excited to announce that I am stepping up as an official contributor to Aesop’s and will be appearing more often in your inbox. As always, I welcome comments and look forward to keeping the conversation going. Happy reading!

A note on this post - The post below references previous posts from Aesop. The issue regarding the War Memorial Youth Center Association reverter clause has been ongoing since former Commissioner Kirk Menendez’s time in office. I have provided links to the referenced posts from Aesop and encourage readers to look back at them as a refresher.

Call it a partnership, call it protection. But when analyzed closely, the issues surrounding the War Memorial Youth Center Association (WMYCA) and the reverter clause run deep and present genuine legal challenges and concerns for the future of the facility. Ultimately, the reverter clause does not work both ways: it’s a one-way commitment that does not place the same binding obligation on the Association.

On Tuesday, June 2nd, the Coral Gables City Commission approved Resolution F-3, a key piece of legislation in the fight to protect the Coral Gables War Memorial Youth Center property. As it is written, Resolution F-3 directs “the City Manager not to proceed with any major capital improvements that would require temporarily ceasing operations at the Coral Gables War Memorial Youth Center until the reverter clause in the deed to the property has been modified to address the City Commission’s concerns regarding its potential interpretation; and directing the City Attorney to pause on litigation efforts until further direction is provided by the City Commission.” Vice-Mayor Anderson very clearly states the goal of the resolution she sponsored in her introductory remarks below:

As Vice-Mayor Anderson explained in prior meetings, the reverter clause is not reciprocal because the clause lacks guard rails to protect residents. Nothing in the reverter clause requires the private organization to operate the Youth Center for the community and the reverter clause does not stop the organization from selling or developing the land.

The Vice-Mayor’s resolution put a pause on major capital improvements at the War Memorial Youth Center, but allows for all maintenance for normal operations. In layman’s terms, this prevents the private organization from claiming that a full tear down and rebuild of the War Memorial Youth Center — which is long overdue for the outdated community facility — triggered the reverter clause, causing the ownership of the land to transfer to the private organization. Simply stated, the Vice-Mayor believes the reverter clause should be modified first in order to ensure that the original intent for the use of the property is preserved.

Aesop has shared multiple posts on the subject of the reverter clause, going back to Kirk’s Chronicles (Part 2): The Non-Profit. Aesop also provided this convenient summary of the reverter clause back in March 2025.

“The 1958 deed transferring the Youth Center to Coral Gables contains a reverter clause requiring the property be maintained as a war memorial and used primarily for youth recreation”

This reverter clause is a point of contention because of the power it gives the private organization through unbridled control over property the City owns. Essentially, if the City decided to cease operations of the Youth Center as a youth facility, property rights would revert back to the Association. The reverter clause could be considered a safeguard against such a scenario, but the issue lies with the lack of safeguards against the Association.

Unlike the obligation placed on the city through the reverter clause, there is no obligation on the Association to maintain use of the facility for the benefit of the youth. This is a hostage situation and the City is the one tied to a chair. The very concern residents have of the city redeveloping the Youth Center site should in fact be directed at the Association. There are no contingencies in place to keep the Association accountable to the public and residents have no recourse against the Association board. If the litigation has revealed anything it’s the lack of willingness of the Association to cooperate with city efforts to protect the intended use of the Youth Center facilities. The reverter clause benefits them, it does not benefit the city.

The clause is inherently subjective. Our Commission is obligated to interpret the law and as Vice-Mayor Anderson has analyzed it, there are no safeguards in place should the property rights revert to the Association. There is no legal document, no legal contingencies, no recourse against the Association should they decide to develop the Youth Center land. As Vice-Mayor Anderson clearly states, if the reverter clause is misinterpreted, misapplied, or a lawsuit begins, there is no requirement for the private Association to continue to run the facility as it is intended to be run. Vice-Mayor Anderson’s follow up comments during discussion below further outline her intent with this resolution:

This resolution does not freeze litigation with the Association. Rather, it puts appropriate pressure on the Association, reinforcing Mayor Lago’s, Vice-Mayor Anderson’s, and Commissioner Lara’s ongoing attempts to come to an agreement with the Association and protect the use of the Youth Center as a youth facility.

We do have recourse against our commissioners: we vote for them. We don’t vote for the members of the board. Other public-private partnerships exist like this in the city, but those organizations don’t possess a political weapon in the form of a reverter clause that would grant a private unaccountable organization property rights over a publicly run facility.

Despite the dissolution of the Association in the early 1990s, discussed by Aesop in September 2025, the reverter clause is the only leg the association has to stand on. The dissolution of the Association is an important issue to note because, as Aesop states, “the WMYCA doesn’t enjoy title to the Youth Center property, rather it holds only a contingent ownership claim by virtue of a condition-subsequent reverter. In other words, something has to happen to trigger the reverter, and the WMYCA has to be around to do something about it.” With that in mind, what legal justification does the organization have for the reverter clause when, for a period of time, the organization ceased to exist? The Commission has a responsibility to analyze all aspects of the situation and to come to a reasonable determination of the legal implications this reverter clause has on the public facility, including dissolution of the organization “designed” to protect it.

The city has leverage over the organization to get the Association’s attention, as stated by Commissioner Lara, simply by holding off on making a capital improvement as long as a point of contention exists. Following Commissioner Lara’s comments below, City Manager Iglesias expressed a valid concern:

This resolution protects the city from a major capital improvement expenditure while a contentious reverter clause remains in place. As City Manager Iglesias expressed, the Association can simply seek contingent ownership based upon the technicality of the construction endeavor: two years of construction equates to two years of the property no longer being used as a youth facility. What’s to hold the Association back from using this technicality as the basis for seeking contingent ownership through the reverter clause?

Ultimately, should the city move forward with the expenditure only for the property rights to be challenged by the Association, the city could lose a major publicly funded facility. This resolution is the safeguard for the city against an organization that could easily abuse the power of the reverter clause once a new facility is built. This is not about litigation, it is about protecting the best interests of residents and our youth facility.